Autopsy AFL 2025 First Preliminary Final - Pies v Lions Sat Sept 20th 5:15pm EST (MCG)

[RCAB]

Only in your world RCAB, only in your world.

You're in my world.

 

[The Flying Belgian]

Good luck with getting RCAB to admit he is wrong

Can't work if he's trolling us, or we're trolling him.

 

[VicBased]

Can't work if he's trolling us, or we're trolling him.

Oh Shit, not the old Doubletroll!!!

 

[3KZ is Football]

Only in your world RCAB, only in your world.

It’s Karma from THE FOOTY GODS after the umpires gifted Collingwood a win against Footscray in Round 2.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/pathetic-fury-at-crazy-decision-as-nick-daicos-double-standard-exposed/news-story/17a4c6b84bbe57a20d504dadacc6cf07

WE JUST DOUBLED DOWN.

P.S. Anthony Rocca’s famous behind in the 2002 Grand Final really was a behind and Wayne Harmes played the ball when it was inside the field of play in 1979.

 

[Soggy2112]

It actually doesn't matter if it's side on contact, if you cannon it into a marking player like that it's a free kick.

View attachment 2435195

Show me the rule that says that.

You’re actually taking the piss at this point surely…

 

[RCAB]

Show me the rule that says that.

You’re actually taking the piss at this point surely…

You keep posting walls of text, like some kind AFL rules lawyer , like it legitimises what you're saying... It just makes you look more foolish.



I'm not sure how one of the most obvious free kicks in a final, you think it's not a free kick, but here we are.

 

[ceebsaf]

You keep posting walls of text, like some kind AFL rules lawyer , like it legitimises what you're saying... It just makes you look more foolish.

View attachment 2435515

I'm not sure how one of the most obvious free kicks in a final, you think it's not a free kick, but here we are.

play on.

 

[Cyclops]

You keep posting walls of text, like some kind AFL rules lawyer , like it legitimises what you're saying... It just makes you look more foolish.

View attachment 2435515

I'm not sure how one of the most obvious free kicks in a final, you think it's not a free kick, but here we are.

He makes contact with Elliots arm (chopping) and chest (front on contact).

Claims that "he hit the ball" make no sense, his hands are lower than Elliots, the ball popped out because if the arm chop.

Its a clear free missed, but hardly the worst umpiring error on the night. The crowd got in the umps ear and we got a good run especially with play on calls in the second.

It wasn't the difference, the better side won. They dominated play, controlled the centre corridor and only mild inaccuracy prevented a blow out. Not unlike 2023 gf with roles reversed.

 

[M Malice]

There is nothing in the rules that forbids front on contact if your sole objective is to spoil or mark the ball... incidental contact, same as a spoil or mark from behind.

 

[Soggy2112]

View attachment 2435515

I'm not sure how one of the most obvious free kicks in a final, you think it's not a free kick, but here we are.

Here’s how I think that:

Live, I thought it was a free.

Then, they showed the replay, and I thought actually, his eyes are on the ball the whole way, his arm is up to spoil, and I think he did get the ball, which means that I’m pretty sure it’s not a free kick.

Then there was all this controversy, so I thought maybe I am wrong. So I went full nuffy and actually read the rules to check, and it turns out, the rules say what I thought they said.

Again, you could win this debate pretty easily if you could just post a screenshot of the rule that you think he broke.

You keep posting walls of text, like some kind AFL rules lawyer , like it legitimises what you're saying... It just makes you look more foolish.

I think I’ve clearly explained my point and shown the rules as evidence to support it.

You keep repeating the phrase “he cannoned into him” despite that not being in the rules and keep trying to argue it’s an arm chop, without ever addressing the multiple times I and others explained why we think it isn’t.

So in short, you think that me being able to demonstrate reading comprehension and an ability to articulate myself makes me look like the fool, while you just repeating the same thing over and over again without ever explaining it makes you the intelligent one.

 

[RCAB]

Here’s how I think that:

Live, I thought it was a free.

Then, they showed the replay, and I thought actually, his eyes are on the ball the whole way, his arm is up to spoil, and I think he did get the ball, which means that I’m pretty sure it’s not a free kick.

Then there was all this controversy, so I thought maybe I am wrong. So I went full nuffy and actually read the rules to check, and it turns out, the rules say what I thought they said.

Again, you could win this debate pretty easily if you could just post a screenshot of the rule that you think he broke.




I think I’ve clearly explained my point and shown the rules as evidence to support it.

You keep repeating the phrase “he cannoned into him” despite that not being in the rules and keep trying to argue it’s an arm chop, without ever addressing the multiple times I and others explained why we think it isn’t.

So in short, you think that me being able to demonstrate reading comprehension and an ability to articulate myself makes me look like the fool, while you just repeating the same thing over and over again without ever explaining it makes you the intelligent one.

Doesn’t matter if his eyes were on the ball — if you cannon into a marking player front-on and miss the spoil, it’s interference under 18.5.2. That’s the rule, not my opinion.

 

[Soggy2112]

Doesn’t matter if his eyes were on the ball — if you cannon into a marking player front-on and miss the spoil, it’s interference under 18.5.2. That’s the rule, not my opinion.

18.5.2 does not say that.

 

[RCAB]

18.5.2 does not say that.

(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an oppositionPlayer;

(e) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark
which interferes with an opposition Player.



Both of these things happened

 

[Soggy2112]

(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an oppositionPlayer;

(e) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark
which interferes with an opposition Player.

View attachment 2435889

Both of these things happened

Good, we’re getting somewhere.

His arm was up in a spoiling motion and his eyes remained on the ball the whole way, so I think it is inaccurate to say he deliberately interfered with Elliot’s arms.

IMO Starcevich touches the ball. I say that based on the slow mo showing his hand was definitely very close to the ball, and the ball goes up, which suggests he got a fist to it. If he touches it then it’s a realistic attempt.

If he misses it, then it could be considered unrealistic, but the fact that we’re splitting hairs over whether he did or did not touch the ball means it’s fair to say it was a realistic attempt.

 

[daniel_4tw]

(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an oppositionPlayer;

(e) makes an unrealistic attempt to contest or spoil a Mark
which interferes with an opposition Player.

View attachment 2435889

Both of these things happened

Andrew Dillion confirmed it was the correct decision. So it doesn’t really matter what anyone else thinks it should be only what it actually is.

GW: Is it a free kick?

AD: I reckon you can look at it replay after replay and maybe have a different conversation. We think the umpire from the position he was in, he made a call that was certainly the right call.

GW: If that happens again on Saturday, would we expect the same call of play on?

AD: I think if you’ve got the umpire in that position with that happening, absolutely.

 

[RCAB]

Andrew Dillion confirmed it was the correct decision. So it doesn’t really matter what anyone else thinks it should be only what it actually is.

GW: Is it a free kick?

AD: I reckon you can look at it replay after replay and maybe have a different conversation. We think the umpire from the position he was in, he made a call that was certainly the right call.

GW: If that happens again on Saturday, would we expect the same call of play on?

AD: I think if you’ve got the umpire in that position with that happening, absolutely.

Adam Kingsley
"Make contact front on, with a player who's trying to make the ball, so in my view that's a free kick"



Elliott is elevated, arms up marking position.

Starcevich comes from front on, makes heavy body contact into Elliott’s side and collides with Elliott’s arm.

Starcevich does not clearly spoil and Elliott is already in marking control posture.





Relevant Rules

Law 18.5.3: Incidental contact is only permitted if the sole objective is to contest or spoil.

But...

(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;




1. Front-on/forceful contact: Elliott is in the air, vulnerable. Starcevich arrives late and cannons through the body. That’s not incidental once Elliott is airborne.


2. Arm contact: His spoil attempt results in dragging/chopping Elliott’s arm down instead of a clean fist to the ball.


3. Realistic attempt? He’s too late, the body makes first impact, not the spoil. That should be classed as unrealistic by interpretation. Otherwise like I've said before, you can use this tactic to stop forwards from marking nearly every single time, take the forward out without ever hitting the ball.





By the book, this is a missed free kick to Elliott

Forceful front-on contact while in a marking attempt.

Interference with the arms (arm chop).



No clear spoil before body... unrealistic attempt.





You may argue “he had eyes on the ball” but as the law makes clear, intention doesn’t excuse outcome. If you cannon into a marking player and interfere with the arms, that’s an infringement regardless of eye line.

 

[daniel_4tw]

So the CEO is wrong then? The one that employs the umpires and responsible for the rules of the game?

Either it’s a conspiracy theory that rivals JFK or a few people in the media and BigFooty need to be educated. Thinking it SHOULD be a free kick is not the same of it BEING a free kick.

Umpire made a call, CEO says correct call, and if the same thing happened you would see the same outcome. Sounds like in this universe it’s correct call. Go lobby the AFL if you want to see a change in the rules.

 

[NeverEddie]

Adam Kingsley
"Make contact front on, with a player who's trying to make the ball, so in my view that's a free kick"

View attachment 2435934

Elliott is elevated, arms up marking position.

Starcevich comes from front on, makes heavy body contact into Elliott’s side and collides with Elliott’s arm.

Starcevich does not clearly spoil and Elliott is already in marking control posture.

View attachment 2435944



Relevant Rules

Law 18.5.3: Incidental contact is only permitted if the sole objective is to contest or spoil.

But...

(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;




1. Front-on/forceful contact: Elliott is in the air, vulnerable. Starcevich arrives late and cannons through the body. That’s not incidental once Elliott is airborne.


2. Arm contact: His spoil attempt results in dragging/chopping Elliott’s arm down instead of a clean fist to the ball.


3. Realistic attempt? He’s too late, the body makes first impact, not the spoil. That should be classed as unrealistic by interpretation. Otherwise like I've said before, you can use this tactic to stop forwards from marking nearly every single time, take the forward out without ever hitting the ball.





By the book, this is a missed free kick to Elliott

Forceful front-on contact while in a marking attempt.

Interference with the arms (arm chop).

View attachment 2435949

No clear spoil before body... unrealistic attempt.





You may argue “he had eyes on the ball” but as the law makes clear, intention doesn’t excuse outcome. If you cannon into a marking player and interfere with the arms, that’s an infringement regardless of eye line.

Glad to see you are now acknowledging and attempting to argue on the basis of the actual rules. But the still you posted does not support your argument.

You argue "No clear spoil before body... unrealistic attempt". But the still shows that he contacted the ball, and did so before there was any body (or arm) contact.

Mick Malthouse has joined the queue of people who know what their talking about when it comes to footy (along with Brown, Dunstall and now apparently also Buckley and Andrew Dylan) who say it was a legitimate and well executed spoil.

I think its case closed on this one.

 

[M Malice]

Posters aren't getting it.

Front on contact is not prohibited under the laws of the game.

Think of it the same as from behind or from the side contact when attempting a spoil, if the umpires opinion(there are a lot of subjective decisions in AFL)is that Starcevich's sole intention was to spoil the ball then contact is incidental and allowed under the laws of the game.

Players have forcefully impacted opposition players from behind or the side multiple times in every game ever played while spoiling or attempting a mark.

 

[Soggy2112]

Adam Kingsley
"Make contact front on, with a player who's trying to make the ball, so in my view that's a free kick"

View attachment 2435934

Elliott is elevated, arms up marking position.

Starcevich comes from front on, makes heavy body contact into Elliott’s side and collides with Elliott’s arm.

Starcevich does not clearly spoil and Elliott is already in marking control posture.

View attachment 2435944



Relevant Rules

Law 18.5.3: Incidental contact is only permitted if the sole objective is to contest or spoil.

But...

(b) unduly pushes or bumps an opposition Player;
(c) deliberately interferes with the arms of an opposition Player;




1. Front-on/forceful contact: Elliott is in the air, vulnerable. Starcevich arrives late and cannons through the body. That’s not incidental once Elliott is airborne.


2. Arm contact: His spoil attempt results in dragging/chopping Elliott’s arm down instead of a clean fist to the ball.


3. Realistic attempt? He’s too late, the body makes first impact, not the spoil. That should be classed as unrealistic by interpretation. Otherwise like I've said before, you can use this tactic to stop forwards from marking nearly every single time, take the forward out without ever hitting the ball.





By the book, this is a missed free kick to Elliott

Forceful front-on contact while in a marking attempt.

Interference with the arms (arm chop).

View attachment 2435949

No clear spoil before body... unrealistic attempt.





You may argue “he had eyes on the ball” but as the law makes clear, intention doesn’t excuse outcome. If you cannon into a marking player and interfere with the arms, that’s an infringement regardless of eye line.

I’m glad you’re now actually explaining yourself and addressing the points made, however you’re still adding bits to the rules that aren’t actually there.

Firstly, a coach is not an authority on the rules, any more than an umpire is not an authority on what is good tactics.

Secondly, your argument is based on the idea that Starcevich makes contact with the body FIRST, and not the ball. However, the still image you posted clearly shows that he gets to the ball BEFORE their bodies make contact.

It also shows that his eyes are on the ball, his arm is clearly up in a spoiling motion (which rules out this being a deliberate arm chop), and he is not braced for contact or preparing to bump/knee/push etc. All of this means that it is incidental contact and not intentional.

 

[Soggy2112]

You may argue “he had eyes on the ball” but as the law makes clear, intention doesn’t excuse outcome. If you cannon into a marking player and interfere with the arms, that’s an infringement regardless of eye line.

Actually, the rules explicitly say that it does, multiple times.

“The player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a mark shall be permitted to do so”

“Incidental contact in a marking contest will be permitted if the player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a mark”

 

[RCAB]

Glad to see you are now acknowledging and attempting to argue on the basis of the actual rules. But the still you posted does not support your argument.

You argue "No clear spoil before body... unrealistic attempt". But the still shows that he contacted the ball, and did so before there was any body (or arm) contact.

Mick Malthouse has joined the queue of people who know what their talking about when it comes to footy (along with Brown, Dunstall and now apparently also Buckley and Andrew Dylan) who say it was a legitimate and well executed spoil.

I think its case closed on this one.

Actually takes Elliot before spoiling but even so illegal front on contact. Drags his arm down with massive force.

If you was coming from behind slightly nudge him while Elliot in the air... still a free kick. Thanks for clarifying that's it's a free kick again.

 

[RCAB]

I’m glad you’re now actually explaining yourself and addressing the points made, however you’re still adding bits to the rules that aren’t actually there.

I'm not adding bits to rule you're just interpreting it differently.

The interpretation with this kind of contact is a free kick.

 

[RCAB]

Actually, the rules explicitly say that it does, multiple times.

“The player whose sole objective is to contest or spoil a mark shall be permitted to do so”

“Incidental contact in a marking contest will be permitted if the player’s sole objective is to contest or spoil a mark”

Yes incidental... but it wasn't incidental.

He brought Elliot down with force. Not incidental. Seems we agree now.

 

[M Malice]

Should this mark of the year have been a free kick against Jonathan Brown?

Back with the flight, eyes on the ball, makes forceful front on contact with a defender.